Forum   |   Links    


Forum Home   Start New Topic   Edit Profile   Register  

1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   11   12   13   14   15   16   17   18   19   20   21   22   23   24   25   26   27   28   29   30   31   32   33   34   35   36   37   38   39   40   41   42   43   44   45   46   47   48   49   50   51   52   53   54   55   56   57   58   59   60   61   62   63   64   65   66   67   68   69   70  


Show Profile  mcroxford Posted: 10 April 2019, 2:57 AM  
Two items picked up already include:

New 532 Stairway

New small white dot in the centre of symbol 418 for small distinct tree to assist with those with colour/vision impairment.

Show Profile  mcroxford Posted: 18 April 2019, 12:06 AM  
Minutes from last week's IOF meeting. ISSOM2019 in effect 1 Jan 2020:

15.1. MC: Approval ISSprOM 2019
TH presented the draft International Standard for Sprint Orienteering Maps (ISSprOM 2019) from Map Commission. The specification had been consulted with FOC, TOC and RC and following some modifications all 3 commissions recommended approval. Council noted that unfortunately Athletes Commission input had not been received despite several requests.

HK raised concerns about the removal of the dark green colour used to denote vegetation which is “forbidden to pass” in the previous version of the specification.
Council also discussed the use of “impassable” and “forbidden” wording in the specification. Council agreed to keep the wording regarding forbidden areas as proposed but noting that this should be viewed only as informational text and that the symbols which show forbidden to cross or enter must be listed in the IOF Competition Rules.

Council, voting 8 FOR/1 AGAINST/2 NOT PRESENT approved the ISSprOM 2019 for use.

The use of the new specification would be required for any IOF events held as of 1 January 2020 and after that date. IOF Events held prior to 1 January 2020 should use the ISSOM 2007 specification or ask for a rules deviation to use ISSprOM 2019 if desired.

Council would ask the Map Commission to consider if there was a need in the future to have separate mapping standards for forest and urban areas, or if the 2 specifications could be combined.

Show Profile  mcroxford Posted: 28 April 2019, 2:42 PM  
A 'summary' of amendments between the old and new versions of ISSOM is available for download from:

Show Profile  Michael Posted: 15 May 2019, 6:55 AM  
Recommend url to get to IOF mapping documents. New CMYK values in OCAD's latest symbol sets needs testing thru your usual printer. For those without the latest OCAD I've put OCAD 11 files with the latest symbols and colours on

Show Profile  mcroxford Posted: 17 May 2019, 4:34 AM  
Huge investment in Lidar for the following regions Waikato, Bay of Plenty, Hawke’s Bay, Tasman, Marlborough, Canterbury, West Coast and Southland!

Press release claims that there over half of NZ will then be captured.

Show Profile  mcroxford Posted: 17 May 2019, 4:34 AM

Show Profile  Michael Posted: 3 June 2019, 4:58 PM  
An ONZ Mapping Bulletin dated May 2019 covers new opportunities for basemap production, ongoing changes to Mapping Specifications, and some views on scales. Sent to clubs and mappers known to the committee. Let us know if you didn't get one, and would like to.

Show Profile  mcroxford Posted: 20 June 2019, 1:59 AM  
Significant area of new open source lidar on OpenTopo website for the Whanganui Manawatu and Horowhenua. Patchy but looks great.

Show Profile  Michael Posted: 2 July 2019, 7:00 PM  
Its that time of year when major championships in the northern hemisphere are being held. As well as the competition I always learn a bit about mapping styles (as far as can be gleaned without being there). Already Bulletin 4 for JWOC has some notes about mapping, eg some local features that will and won't be shown.

Show Profile  mcroxford Posted: 3 July 2019, 1:01 AM  
It's an interesting decision to include and one that some mappers find confusing if you read the FB posts on Orienteering Mappers Int. I do tend to map the same buti wouldn't map the first photo or third photo example in the bulletin and only map the third if I would have to significantly alter my course to get around the canopy. So my green line for a windfall pine starts at about the level they've pruned up to. Multiple trees can be a blob, as in the Bulletin and I've gone away from using tree stumps unless they are taller than me.

Another interesting feature on the sample maps is how they have mapped wind rows post harvesting. I noticed at Queens Birthday these and large log piles were mapped with the green cross which I found difficult to interpret. I prefer the Danish method of mapping these as blobs or strips of fight. Thoughts?

Show Profile  Michael Posted: 3 July 2019, 3:16 PM  
You're talking about the significant fallen trees Michael? (Cant quite follow your first/third/third train of thought.) Many different circumstances aren't there, including how significant a barrier they are in relation to the expected use - in the long distance some barriers can just be absorbed into the runnability.

Show Profile  mcroxford Posted: 31 July 2019, 2:49 AM  
Another data dump on OpenTopo of Lidar. This time in my backyard. New areas in Marlborough. I'm thinking it's time for ONZ to write to all Councils in NZ encouraging them to deposit their raw data on to the website.

Show Profile  Michael Posted: 10 August 2019, 5:07 AM  
Some experience with conversion of maps from ISSOM to ISSprOM2019 has been collected - see top item at Anyone with advice to add, please contribute via the Mapping Committee.

When converting, is hard NOT to use the new colour tables supplied by OCAD. These are designed for offset printing and may give surprising results on some digital printers. We're talking to OCAD about this.

Show Profile  Michael Posted: 24 August 2019, 10:37 AM  
I've created a commented version of the OCAD cross-reference table for converting an ISSOM map to ISSprOM. The benefit for anyone who has any variations on the symbols is that you can see what's going on and tailor it to your own files. Early OCAD versions of the ISSOM symbols are not necessarily the same as recent ones so you may have variations unwittingly. I would like a couple of testers with recently-created sprint files to check out this CRT before I publish it more widely.

Show Profile  Bryan Posted: 25 October 2019, 12:31 AM  
Just wondering what I should use for magnetic declination.

There is a useful utility in Ocad 2019 which allows you to zoom in to an area using OpenStreetMap and it tells you the magnetic north value to use.

This value is the same as the lat/long magnetic north value as on the GNS website. However this is different to the value you get if you use the NZTM chart. For a Wellington area the difference is 22.65 compared to 23.75 (NZTM 2019). This is just over a degree. We are using the NZTM projection for our maps.

Even though a degree is not much, I think mappers should be aware there is a difference and it may be greater in different parts of NZ. I will stick to using the GNS NZTM value.

From a previous post to maptalk - a reply by Michael:
As to what that angle should be, I had an interesting time finding the authority on this. It isn't Land Information NZ, it's Geological and Nuclear Sciences. See If you read this carefully, you'll realise that it isn't the magnetic-true angle that you're after, but the magnetic-grid north angle. There are graphs of its variation for NZMG (and I'm hoping that its not very different for NZTM). Somewhere between 23 and 23.5 for Wellington, maybe closer to 24 for Wairarapa. For practical purposes I don't think a degree out is a problem.

1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   11   12   13   14   15   16   17   18   19   20   21   22   23   24   25   26   27   28   29   30   31   32   33   34   35   36   37   38   39   40   41   42   43   44   45   46   47   48   49   50   51   52   53   54   55   56   57   58   59   60   61   62   63   64   65   66   67   68   69   70  

Ruffneck Productions © Ruffneck Productions